Funders converge on a similar checklist regardless of case type. First, legal merit: a clear cause of action, strong supporting evidence, and a tested legal theory with a realistic prospect of success. Second, the quality of counsel, funders favor lawyers and firms with strong track records and a clear litigation or arbitration strategy, since counsel quality is one of the best available proxies for case quality itself.
Third, and often decisive, is collectability: confidence that the defendant can actually pay a judgment. Funders gravitate toward claims against highly liquid defendants, insurers, banks, well-capitalized corporations, or government bodies, where the risk of a hollow victory is lower. Fourth is duration; the longer a case is expected to run, the greater the funder's capital exposure and the lower the effective annualized return, so funders favor claims with a reasonably predictable timeline.
Finally, size matters simply because underwriting costs are largely fixed regardless of claim value: many funders, including large players such as Burford Capital, set effective minimum financing thresholds (commonly cited around $5 million of client need) below which the economics of the underwriting process no longer work.